Thanks for dropping knowledge. I think Nietzsche did get criticized for his generalizations. I like his method and believe the essence of what he was saying was spot on. Too bad he was too early for
The Blues. He is absolutely right in his appraisal of what is needed in art to complete us and tell our story. I mean everyone. I heard the same thing in the sounds of American music he could not have ever heard. I think it’s really neat. There is lots more that can be written here. Anyway, you can nitpick all you want or even picnic. I appreciate it.
I like the Apollonian and Dionysian distinction, but at the risk of being nitpicky, that ancient Greeks would have been puzzled by the labeling. Apollo in the original myths isn't always rational by any means. His music is seen as more orderly, but in that respect, he's contrasted with Pan, not with Dionysus.
Both Apollo and Dionysus have pretty broad portfolios. Apollo covers, among other things, light, truth, justice, music, and healing, though each overlaps with other deities. Law and medicine are both pretty rational pursuits, though Athena is more often presented as the epitome of wisdom than Apollo is. Dionysus is most commonly known as the god of wine, but he also covers ecstasy and madness. Certainly, none of those are rational. But later on, the Orphic movement made him a savior god, the child who is slaughtered and reincarnated. He then uses Orpheus as a prophet to spread a comforting message about the afterlife. To a strict rationalist, I suppose that wouldn't be considered rational either, but there is certainly a big difference between the town drunk and a messianic figure.
A similar distinction might be made between the rational Aristotle and the more emotional and spiritual Plato. Later on, we can see a lot of the same contrasts between neoclassicism and romanticism. That so many similar distinctions arose at different times suggests it's an appealing distinction.
Thanks so much for reading and sharing. Well I put that line in there because I felt like I was beginning to sound cliche. But I believe in art as one of the most powerful forces out there. That is an understatement. It is indeed an intrinsic part of my life for sure.
Dionysian here, according to this article, and this explanation was both apt and creative. In my current quest to find good tunes (solely based on my chaotic definition of "good"), I've come across musicians and groups holding down that Apollonian 4/4 like their lives depend on it and others who are creative enough to play with time and space in music to communicate in syncopated rhythms and layer their songs with meaning. My partner is a musician and he and I often talk about how a song is more than a song. It's the blend of distinct and cooperative parts that, together, constitute an even greater whole, though the goal is for each instrument to stand on its own, too. Music, like all art, is a conversation. <3
Well put, music is a conversation. I like the word urgent to describe my fav music. It is a conversation that is bursting to get out, like it’s a burning thing inside someone. It must be expressed.
Strawbridge, again you stimulate thought, which I believe is your ultimate goal; promises made, and promises kept. However, I am a bit nervous about the term you use early in your piece. You say "some entity" stimulates you to express yourself. The term "some entity" would be called GOD by many. Those who would call some entity God, would also say that using those words are, simply, a New Age way of saying God. My other questions relate to your definition of Folk Music. As a eclectic music aficionado, I challenge the notion of including jazz into the category of Folk Music. Do you really believe that Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King or Lightnin' Hopkins and Papa John Creach would consider themselves "Folk singers/performers? Not likely. And where in the world would you place so-called Rap "music?" You provide your readers a lot to noodle. Again, I give you thanks.
Hi Benn. I am so glad to hear your comments, questions, and disagreements. I do not mind disagreements at all. You are stimulating my mind as well, especially about the Blues question. But I used entity because I do not know what is driving me to do what I do. I truly do not. Is it something in me? Is it a teaching I learned from someone or somewhere in the past? Maybe it is God, but I was not thinking in that way at the time of writing. I can see why you would not put Jazz in the folk category. I thought alot about that one. Finally I settled on some Jazz being folk, and here I was thinking about Dixieland Jazz and New Orleans Jazz. I also was thinking about early players like Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt. I hear folk in their music, but that is not all. Again, I can see why you would disagree. As for Blues, I think it is the best and most popular form of Folk Music. My category of Folk goes beyond what the industry labels as folk. Lots of musical people labeled Blues as Folk in the 1960s. As you might know, there was a huge Folk Music revival that included Blues and every other kind of somewhat obscure, from the people, music. Lots of Blues artists became known, and became legends, because of this revived interest in their music. I have listened to lots of Bluesmen talk, and they do not always talk about the word Blues. For some, it was "Saturday Night Music." You probably are aware that Blues was just called "race music" at one time. In the early Blues, there was lots of Gospel, a little ragtime, and lots of other styles that defy my ability to call them a name. So, I think Blues as Folk music meets my understanding of the two, and is right. But with music there is lots of disagreement because styles bleed into one another so much. Your comments here are great. Thanks so much. Oh, and you are right, I like to cause people to think. This way they learn about themselves, and then the world at the same time, and everyone benefits.
Funny story: in a Freshman seminar with an art professor, I mentioned my belief that The Who embodied the blending of the Apollonian and Dionysian. With a withering glare, she said, “The Who, aren’t they wonderful!”
Here’s another controversial opinion: rap is folk music.
We share some similarities in musical taste I think. The Who? I have never given thought to them in particular but that seems to fit. Maybe it’s the punkish snarl they have along with the operatic? That’s just a guess. I might be wrong. I could have written much more on this topic, it’s very interesting. Rap is not my thing, but you are right, there will be some strong differences of opinion on that one. You might have started some ballyhoo, maybe a hubbub, and perhaps even a fracas. Well if so, that’s alright.
You spotted it with The Who. I think of it as the contrast between the rational beauty of some of Pete Townshend's melodies, combined with the cacophony of the rhythm section.
Thanks for dropping knowledge. I think Nietzsche did get criticized for his generalizations. I like his method and believe the essence of what he was saying was spot on. Too bad he was too early for
The Blues. He is absolutely right in his appraisal of what is needed in art to complete us and tell our story. I mean everyone. I heard the same thing in the sounds of American music he could not have ever heard. I think it’s really neat. There is lots more that can be written here. Anyway, you can nitpick all you want or even picnic. I appreciate it.
I wish more people cared about all this.
What's in a name?
I like the Apollonian and Dionysian distinction, but at the risk of being nitpicky, that ancient Greeks would have been puzzled by the labeling. Apollo in the original myths isn't always rational by any means. His music is seen as more orderly, but in that respect, he's contrasted with Pan, not with Dionysus.
Both Apollo and Dionysus have pretty broad portfolios. Apollo covers, among other things, light, truth, justice, music, and healing, though each overlaps with other deities. Law and medicine are both pretty rational pursuits, though Athena is more often presented as the epitome of wisdom than Apollo is. Dionysus is most commonly known as the god of wine, but he also covers ecstasy and madness. Certainly, none of those are rational. But later on, the Orphic movement made him a savior god, the child who is slaughtered and reincarnated. He then uses Orpheus as a prophet to spread a comforting message about the afterlife. To a strict rationalist, I suppose that wouldn't be considered rational either, but there is certainly a big difference between the town drunk and a messianic figure.
A similar distinction might be made between the rational Aristotle and the more emotional and spiritual Plato. Later on, we can see a lot of the same contrasts between neoclassicism and romanticism. That so many similar distinctions arose at different times suggests it's an appealing distinction.
This concludes today's ramble.
This might have just compelled me to rewrite what I had ready for The Whale in the Desert.
Thanks for commenting.
I think “art is life” in more ways than we realize. Somehow, we have impetus to create beyond rigid understanding. Art is very much a part of “life”.
Thanks so much for reading and sharing. Well I put that line in there because I felt like I was beginning to sound cliche. But I believe in art as one of the most powerful forces out there. That is an understatement. It is indeed an intrinsic part of my life for sure.
Dionysian here, according to this article, and this explanation was both apt and creative. In my current quest to find good tunes (solely based on my chaotic definition of "good"), I've come across musicians and groups holding down that Apollonian 4/4 like their lives depend on it and others who are creative enough to play with time and space in music to communicate in syncopated rhythms and layer their songs with meaning. My partner is a musician and he and I often talk about how a song is more than a song. It's the blend of distinct and cooperative parts that, together, constitute an even greater whole, though the goal is for each instrument to stand on its own, too. Music, like all art, is a conversation. <3
Well put, music is a conversation. I like the word urgent to describe my fav music. It is a conversation that is bursting to get out, like it’s a burning thing inside someone. It must be expressed.
Strawbridge, again you stimulate thought, which I believe is your ultimate goal; promises made, and promises kept. However, I am a bit nervous about the term you use early in your piece. You say "some entity" stimulates you to express yourself. The term "some entity" would be called GOD by many. Those who would call some entity God, would also say that using those words are, simply, a New Age way of saying God. My other questions relate to your definition of Folk Music. As a eclectic music aficionado, I challenge the notion of including jazz into the category of Folk Music. Do you really believe that Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King or Lightnin' Hopkins and Papa John Creach would consider themselves "Folk singers/performers? Not likely. And where in the world would you place so-called Rap "music?" You provide your readers a lot to noodle. Again, I give you thanks.
Hi Benn. I am so glad to hear your comments, questions, and disagreements. I do not mind disagreements at all. You are stimulating my mind as well, especially about the Blues question. But I used entity because I do not know what is driving me to do what I do. I truly do not. Is it something in me? Is it a teaching I learned from someone or somewhere in the past? Maybe it is God, but I was not thinking in that way at the time of writing. I can see why you would not put Jazz in the folk category. I thought alot about that one. Finally I settled on some Jazz being folk, and here I was thinking about Dixieland Jazz and New Orleans Jazz. I also was thinking about early players like Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt. I hear folk in their music, but that is not all. Again, I can see why you would disagree. As for Blues, I think it is the best and most popular form of Folk Music. My category of Folk goes beyond what the industry labels as folk. Lots of musical people labeled Blues as Folk in the 1960s. As you might know, there was a huge Folk Music revival that included Blues and every other kind of somewhat obscure, from the people, music. Lots of Blues artists became known, and became legends, because of this revived interest in their music. I have listened to lots of Bluesmen talk, and they do not always talk about the word Blues. For some, it was "Saturday Night Music." You probably are aware that Blues was just called "race music" at one time. In the early Blues, there was lots of Gospel, a little ragtime, and lots of other styles that defy my ability to call them a name. So, I think Blues as Folk music meets my understanding of the two, and is right. But with music there is lots of disagreement because styles bleed into one another so much. Your comments here are great. Thanks so much. Oh, and you are right, I like to cause people to think. This way they learn about themselves, and then the world at the same time, and everyone benefits.
Funny story: in a Freshman seminar with an art professor, I mentioned my belief that The Who embodied the blending of the Apollonian and Dionysian. With a withering glare, she said, “The Who, aren’t they wonderful!”
Here’s another controversial opinion: rap is folk music.
We share some similarities in musical taste I think. The Who? I have never given thought to them in particular but that seems to fit. Maybe it’s the punkish snarl they have along with the operatic? That’s just a guess. I might be wrong. I could have written much more on this topic, it’s very interesting. Rap is not my thing, but you are right, there will be some strong differences of opinion on that one. You might have started some ballyhoo, maybe a hubbub, and perhaps even a fracas. Well if so, that’s alright.
You spotted it with The Who. I think of it as the contrast between the rational beauty of some of Pete Townshend's melodies, combined with the cacophony of the rhythm section.